Oh, they're on the ball, Peter. They can sniff out an over-egged pudding even more quickly than they can smell reincarnated dinosaur blood. I don't know how this particular fossil became so hyped-up, but no good will come of it. While we are not exactly doomed, it's put the public perception of evolution back quite a bit.

Brian Jordan wrote:Oh, they're on the ball, Peter. They can sniff out an over-egged pudding even more quickly than they can smell reincarnated dinosaur blood. I don't know how this particular fossil became so hyped-up, but no good will come of it. While we are not exactly doomed, it's put the public perception of evolution back quite a bit.

Ken Ham wrote:"For Attenborough to come out and say, 'We have the missing link; it's no longer missing,' only admits they haven't had missing links before this time," Ham told WND. "If evolution is so decided, why would they get all excited about one fossil that they find now, when they claim they've had proof of evolution for years?"

WND claims to be unbiassed journalism, but the article is followed by links to a couple of dozen previous anti-evolution articles.

WDN is otherwise known as Wingnut Daily. It's bonkers. Notice that the only people it has spoken to to produce this report are also two leading nutters in the cretinist movement - Ken Scam and Jonathan Wells. The "unbiased" reporting doesn't extend to asking mainstream scientists what their view is.

Notice that neither Scam nor Wells appear to have been approached by reputable publications for their opinions.

Nor does Wingnut Daily point out that Wells is a member of a cult that is detested by fundies.

If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms. Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences.

Because the fossil is similar to a modern lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it’s unlikely that creationists need any interpretation of the “missing link” other than that it was a small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now extinct primate—from a kind created on Day 6 of Creation Week.

It's also boring predictable that the nutters at Truth in Science are keeping quiet, otherwise their smokescreen/figleaf of Intelligent Design would be exposed for exactly what it is, young earth creationism.

It's also boringly predictable that the nutters at Truth in Science are keeping quiet, otherwise their smokescreen/figleaf of Intelligent Design would be exposed for exactly what it is, young earth creationism.

Bad news everyone - we've all been rumbled by this alledged "missing link" Careful observation clearly shows that the fossil is, in fact, the remains of the Pink Panther, proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the universe is only 6,000 years old.